I feel like go-kit is quite antithetical to the Go mindset...it presents a lossy abstraction as a means of future-proofing against eventualities that will almost certainly never be encountered
to be honest it strikes me as the sort of library that excites intermediate developers who tend to over-architect
Your "almost certainly never" is another organization's "certainly inevitable" or "already happened". Go kit's scope and applicability is pretty clearly enumerated in the documentation. And there's nothing lossy about its abstractions.
> the sort of library that excites intermediate developers
I find this true about nearly all microservices in Go. Microservices are much more useful in something like Node that can only take advantage of 1 OS thread per instance. Without containerization and load balancing in Node you wouldn't be able to scale.
Go on the other hand can efficiently utilize a nearly unlimited amount of threads as necessary with its scheduler. You're much more likely to over-architect if you don't keep this capacity in mind.
No, but combine cloud APIs, AI, and market consolidation and you will indeed see a reduction in the demand for code. I write much less code than I did ten years ago. I spend more time integrating others' code now than I do writing my own.
In ten years most industrial coders will probably be down to a hundred or so lines of new production code a year...it will be the DATA arcitects who are calling the architecture shots as it becomes clear that data architecture trmps code architecture
I don't believe this to be true. We've seen quite a few technologies, which promised to "let anyone code", without any real success, whereas to "let AI code" is even harder than letting your boss. At the very least, I expect we'd need another 2 or 3 major, paradigm-shifting, breakthroughs to get computers sophisticated enough to program themselves, which is still 50-60 years away.
I mean, that's my gut feeling; we'll see how it plays out, but for now I'm still not really worried about my job disappearing.
I think that we can do a lot more with a lot less programmer hours today. React native is a good example. We have just finished rebuilding our app with maybe one third the time and cost of our two native apps.
This is of course offset by the overall huge growth in demand for all kinds of software. But if that demand curve ever flattens out, then I think we could definitely see a reduction in the need for programmers.
Schools like Cal are still offering too many slots to foreign students despite being chartered to serve the families of taxpayers who provide their funding.
The same issue will eventually plague Canadian schools...foreign students will simply pay more directly for tuition even though taxpayers are still the core source of funds.
For private universities, no one should care..they should select students from wherever they like. But State schools should exist to serve their residents.
Like many things, it's not that quite simple. I would argue that in some ways the charter between the state and the university was broken when the state of California drastically cut funding during the Great Recession and didn't restore it once the budget stabilized.
How can California residents consider it a state resource when its supported primarily by out-of-state/international students paying sticker price and international corporations?
In 1977, education was 27% of the California State budget. In 2008, education was 37% of the California State budget, it is now 42%. And the absolute size of the budget itself is rising. So in fact funding is increasing as a percentage of the budget and in absolute scales.
The only real recent drop was 2007-2008. There is plenty of money available to run UC prudently as a resource for residents...indeed, more than ever before.
Downvote all you want, these are UCs own numbers so they are true regardless of your opinion or angst.
> In 1977, education was 27% of the California State budget. In 2008, education was 37% of the California State budget, it is now 42%. And the absolute size of the budget itself is rising. So in fact funding is increasing as a percentage of the budget and in absolute scales.
Yes, education funding has gone up because of a Constitutional mandate to allocate a certain share of increases to K-14 education; the UC and CSU systems have not been beneficiaries of the increase, each has a much smaller share of the state budget than it used to, and smaller state support per student than it used to.
even if they just get rid of Prop 13 on rentals and passing the benefit to children- at least a future generation may have a chance to affordability in CA... "Thanks to a state proposition that took effect in 1986, known as the "parent-child reassessment exclusion," a child can inherit a parent's principal residence, whether modest or worth millions, without triggering a reassessment for property taxes."
A question I would have, if I were an international student living in say, California, is why would I pay tuition as a legal immigrant on say a F-1 visa, but if I came in illegally, I would have a chance at getting a subsidy[1]? Could they just pretent to be illegal for the subsidy and then when done just go home on your F-1. It's not like the school would check or even less ask the feds about status.
Couldn't you go AWOL and then register as undocumented? Or why not be able to register for Non-Resident Tuition Exemption? Wouldn't that be discriminatory in some sense?
> Couldn't you go AWOL and then register as undocumented? .
Well, you can't qualify for DACA without a time machine, so you'd need to estsblish eligibility under AB 540 by spending three years as a California resident attending a California high school to qualify. Having done this, you wouldn't have to pretend to be undocumented, since you'd pretty certainly lose your F-1 status. So, you'd potentially be eligible for in-state tuition—but also potentially eligible for deportation. Plus, unlike an actual good-standing F-1, you’ll have a lot harder time ever getting legal status in the US.
> Wouldn't that be discriminatory in some sense?
Of course it would; every status distinction made in law is “discriminatory in some sense.”
The relevant issue is does it fail to meet the legal standard of legitimacy of purpose and adaptation to that purpose applicable to the basis and nature of discrimination.
> why would I pay tuition as a legal immigrant on say a F-1 visa
No such thing as a “legal immigrant on an F-1 visa”, as an F-1 is a non-immigrant visa and F-1s are non-resident aliens legally prohibited from establishing a US domicile.
> if I came in illegally, I would have a chance at getting a subsidy
The only people who came in illegally who can be considered residents for UC tuition purposes—as stated on the page you link—are those who are qualified for and have been granted status under DACA (a policy established in 2012), which means you had to be brought over as a child under 16, and must have lived in the US since 2007, or those that have attended 3 years of California high school.
> Could they just pretent to be illegal for the subsidy and then when done just go home on your F-1. It's not like the school would check or even less ask the feds about status
Yes, if you claim to be in DACA status, the state will check your DACA status. If you claim to be an undocumented student that attended three years of California high school, they will check your high school records. If you are a foreign student on an F-1, neither one of those is going to work.
I concede it look like DACA has some time requirements most F-1 students would not satisfy (in addition to the entry age req)
Still a non insignificant amount came here on non-immigrant visas also (tourist visas).
In any event, there may be some meat for a class action by international students who may not want to pay the "full-fare" price they pay, given otherwise international students (on expired tourist visas) are eligible for state subsidy.
> I concede it look like DACA has some time requirements most F-1 students would not satisfy (in addition to the entry age req)
Well, plus if you are in a legal status, you aren't eligible for DACA, plud DACA has been closed to new applicants, so literally no one can qualify for it newly now.
> Still a non insignificant amount came here on non-immigrant visas also (tourist visas).
So?
> In any event, there may be some meat for a class action by international students who may not want to pay the "full-fare" price they pay, given otherwise international students (on expired tourist visas) are eligible for state subsidy.
International students (including a very restricted set of undocumented ones) who are residents are eligible for a state subsidy; residency is, however, incompatible with certain immigration statuses that are nonetheless compatible with study, including F-1.
If I were an international student, that's the incongruence I would challenge right there: "residency is, however, incompatible with certain immigration statuses that are nonetheless compatible with study, including F-1."
I'd say give me the same benefits -or at least in-state tuition.
> I'd say give me the same benefits -or at least in-state tuition.
So, you'd declare your intent to establish permanent residency in the State (and therefore the US)?
That sounds a lot like having immigration intent, which can be a basis for revoking your F-1 status.
Not being a resident is the deal you sign on for with F-1 status. If you'd rather take your chances immigrating illegally, spending three years attending California high school, and then trying to go to UC on in-state tuition as a deportable undocumented immigrant when you are qualified to instead get an F-1, well, sure, you can try. No sane person with the option is going to choose that, though. An F-1 with non-resident tuition is a much better deal.
> Schools like Cal are still offering too many slots to foreign students despite being chartered to serve the families of taxpayers who provide their funding.
Taxpayers don't provide their funding, taxpayers provide a partial subsidy of the costs associated with in-state students; this is why their is reduced tuition for such students.
> Okay, taxpayers provide part of their funding, the remainder of which is through donations and student fees.
Taxpayers provide part (a declining share and declining real per-student amount) of the funding for in-state students. Why would this subsidy have any bearing on the number of out-of-state slots, which are fully (or more than) self-funded? If taxpayers want more in-state slots, then the taxpayers can fund more in-state slots.
> the remainder of which is through donations and student fees
And research contracts, IP and publishing revenue, etc.
I can't say for California, but in NYS, out-of-state students are money-makers for the university. In other words, reducing out-of-state students would increase in-state tuition, or result in facilities/services being cut.
In most cases if the student is a resident but still international (dependent) of a visa holder, the student still ends up paying international fees. Not fun for the parent/guardian
Unfortunately both the UC and CSU systems are very top heavy. They've been nickle and diming the students and taxpayers to prop up some obscene salaries for regents and executives. Hell, UCSF outsourced a bunch of its IT staff to HCL (H1B), but hasn't even begun to trim the fat at the top.
Of course another option would be to lean more heavily on private donors like Zuckerberg and Benioff.
No, foreign students are keeping UC corrupt. UC has been plagued by scandal after scandal, horrendous waste, graft, patronage...etc etc
The UC system needs more oversight, not more funny money. Cal had enough money to build a gorgeous football stadium. They have enough money to fund the Chancellor's alleged slush fund.
California residents have an extremely high tax burden. They are doing their part. UC needs to be cleaned up, starting with a renewed focus on their core mission. None of the necessary reforms will happen while California has one-party rule.
You make it sound like foreign students are stealing resources from the US. To the contrary, they pay a lot for the privilege of studying, and they're likely to try to immigrate later -- and even if you're anti-immigration, it's madness to be against young, educated, skilled immigrants who've experienced your country at an impressionable age.
The UC system was created to serve residents of the State. These are publicly funded institutions. They are here to serve the taxpaying public. Private schools exist to serve aspirational foreign students.
If residents feel the system does not serve them, they will defund it, and everyone will be worse off. We have these things called Propositions, and they tend to elicit emotional responses. Most California residents are probably beginning to have a negative impression of UC...most of the news from UC is graft, corruption, etc
They are institutions which are less and less public funded, and heading in the direction of the fully privatized formerly public institutions in much of the country.
> If residents feel the system does not serve them, they will defund it
They've been effectively defunding UC and CSU for decades through a number of measures, particularly the Prop 98 mandate that forces nominal budget increases to go largely to K-14 education.
That defunding is actually at the root of many of the complaints against UC, including it's reliance on non-resident students and their higher tuition.
> The resentment comes because the UC system has a limited enrollment capacity with competitive admissions, and has a mission of educating residents. So when foreign students take some of those enrollment slots, local students who missed the cut feel cheated.
It's competitive, however it is anything but impossible to get admission into a UC. I'd consider the paths to getting in straight forward.
Either in highschool you are in the top 9% of students statewide, or top 9% in your local highschool if the school participates in the program. You are guaranteed an admission to at least one UC campus.
Didn't make it? Most community colleges offer guaranteed transfer agreements where you complete a requirement of classes and GPA, giving you an automatic admission.
And if this is still too much, there is the entire CSU system to consider.
On the contrary, California's budget is awful because of a combination of Prop 13 and the lack of one party rule. By requiring a supermajority vote for tax changes, Prop 13 all but guaranteed that any additional programs would be funded by ballot initiative, which has forced way too much of California's tax revenue into no longer needed programs and bond repayment. The recent Democrat supermajority has slowly been cleaning up what little of the government remains in control of the legislature.
but in the first .com bubble, companies lived and died only on their stock activity. these days, the winners have enough cash piled up that a recession would actually be welcome; it would allow them to buy companies and employees on the cheap, and many of their flimsy competitors would fold.
if you think Apple, Google and Facebook dominate now, wait until the next recession. can your company laugh off losing half it's market cap temporarily? they can
Apple, Google and Facebook are not the issue dude. All the companies that have yet to really be profitable are. Come on, that's obvious. Of course those companies which have cash on hand would be fine.
Nope, US phases out social security taxes and has vastly lower rates for capital gains etc. If you look at total earnings vs. total taxes paid including non income taxes the rich pay a lower share than the middle class.
Remember gas taxes are just as much a tax as income or property tax.
but NIMBYs still have not had their core claim dismissed: that new residential capacity is not being augmented with better transportation infrastructure or even schools. most NIMBYs gave up on neighborhood parks, they seem just impossible now. amusingly, even retail is being shunned (residential is build, sell and move on, which is why places like Silver Creek in San Jose only have one tiny pathetic market for 5k homes). most cities now have to force retail components on to developers
if you live in the US, chances are you attended a public school built by a developer in exchange for development rights, and the school was accessible by a road also built by the developer. the park was set aside as such and not filled with homes; instead the developer paid to put in a swingset and a tennis court
now developers refuse to augment transportation infrastructure or build schools (and it is illegal to decline a development due to predicted pressure on local school), and NIMBYs want to know why. all they get in response are downvotes on message boards or personal attacks
thousands new rental units are going up along Lawrence Expressway in Santa Clara...but no new road capacity and no new schools, and no parks or open space at all. what kind of a community would you like to live in? in a few years the same urban professionals who are the core of the YIMBYs will be freaking out about no schools or parks, because they are going to want them.
That's a total misrepresentation. It's people proposing things like Measure S in LA, which would have put every single construction project, including schools roads and parks, all of them, on ice for two years.
It's people like the residents of Beverly Hills who held up the construction of a Subway for 15 damn years. They are anti-mass transit and pro-traffic. Literally, yes.
It's people like the one lone nut that fought in the courts to make the LA expo train slow down to 10 miles per hour passing through his neighborhood. Oh joy!
It's people like the group fighting Against putting new green parkspace over the 101 freeway and reconnecting the neighborhoods.
It's people like the damn group in the sunset hills who got a Frank Gehry affordable housing project With park space cancelled in favor of keeping a strip mall from the 50s. Anti-park, anti-housing...
So no, this is the actual reality. They are anti-everything. Anti infrastructure, anti parks, anti schools, anti housing, anti everything.
They're not leftists or activists, they're just greedy stubborn dick waving assholes with lawyers. They've got zero interest in building a community, they just want to control everything.
One of the most important things we can do for more livable cities is organize against these foot dragging campaigns.
And they're everywhere! Our daughter's school bought an old golf course to create some athletic facilities and a nature preserve for the kids. (We're not talking a football stadium, but a few fields surrounded by parkland for a non-sports-oriented K-12 school with less than 800 students). They were tied up in litigation for years.http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/schools/ph-ac-cn-key-scho.... After losing at trial, the resident group appealed it all the way to the state supreme court!
Residents gave the stupidest reasons for it too:
> But that doesn't go far enough for Geri Nicholson, who lives on Carrollton Road and across the street from the park.
> "The roads aren't safe, and the project as planned is not going to make them any safer," Nicholson said.
> Association President Tom Bodor said a price can't be placed on safety.
> "How much is safety worth? It is priceless," Bodor said.
If this is actually NIMBYs' core claim, I'm overjoyed, because it can plausibly be worked with.
Building literal greenfield subdivisions is a little different from infill/intensification in a city. Where one developer is building all the homes, of course he needs to provide all the infrastructure and amenities between them, or no one will want to live there.
Urban intensification is one site at a time. I hope no single developer is doing so much of the construction that it also makes sense to make him responsible for schools and transit. The whole angle of YIMBYism is to reduce landlords' pricing power through competition. So if ten different developers are operating simultaneously, who pays for what?
If only there were some sort of institution for solving these coordination problems. We could call it... municipal government. If only there were some sort of mechanism for it to skim off of real estate value and use the money for public goods. We could call it... property taxes.
Maybe "our side" isn't campaigning loudly enough for increasing public investements in public goods, but the support is there. What you're probably seeing pushback for is arguments like, "well, I don't see a school in this proposal for 20 condos, so get lost" and other stuff that looks like a rhetorical strategy for a decision you already made, rather than your actual objection.
Road capacity is an interesting one, because people who live in dense walkable environments close to their offices need less transportation. Killing projects in SF based on their traffic/transit impacts sends their potential residents out to Walnut Creek. That's not better.
EDIT: I will also add that huge multi-buildings sites developed all at once have a tendency to feel fake. There's a very real risk of uncanny valley when a developer is trying to bootstrap a neighborhood all at once. Organic, incremental growth is something we should celebrate and encourage.
I'm 100% with you, but unfortunately residential property taxes aren't going to be able to cover necessary municipal infrastructure in California until we get Prop 13[0] repealed. It may have been passed with noble intentions (although from the outside it sure looks like existing property holders transparently exploiting newcomers to the area), but the net effect is a systemic underinvestment in local infrastructure since the 1970s.
The YIMBYers would love to kill off Prop 13 and return to sane levels of local funding, but it's state wide and still far too politically sacred to be attacked directly.
As far as I know prop 13 suppress property taxes of old buildings, not new ones. New buildings should therefore have an outsized impact on the ability to create infrastructure.
There's actually a proposal for a ballot measure next year to end Prop 13 for commercial properties -- definitely a start. It would bring $11 billion in revenue every year.
"If only there were some sort of mechanism for it to skim off of real estate value and use the money for public goods. We could call it... property taxes."
what schools? land has to be set aside for schools. no developer makes this sacrifice anymore. it doesn't matter if revenue is generated if there is NO SCHOOL because no one would build one. and yes this is becoming a problem in the Bay Area.
"Road capacity is an interesting one, because people who live in dense walkable environments close to their offices need less transportation"
maybe like 0.1% of people in SF are candidates for walking to work, you can't be serious
If one developer is doing a single project so big that they can spare a school-sized plot of land... that's concerning in itself. The model of production that worked for cookie-cutter subdivisions isn't the only or best one.
Public money can and should be used to acquire and develop sites. The city can negotiate with developers to get schools incorporated into large multi-use buildings the same way we got museums/arts centers around Yerba Buena.
We don't need developers to plop down entire fully-formed communities all at once to get these things, and we shouldn't necessarily want them to. More, higher-value activity to tax only increases the city's ability to build what is needed collectively.
100% of people in a condo tower next to a cluster of office towers and a Muni stop should be very serious candidates for walking, bicycling, or taking Muni. This could create more transit riders and therefore require more transit (which we’d be happy to approve), but also take some existing longer-distance drivers or transit riders down to shorter and less resource-hungry commutes.
> maybe like 0.1% of people in SF are candidates for walking to work
Everyone says SF is seven miles a side. Walking speed is maybe 3mph. If you want a commute of 40 minutes each way, you need to live at most 2 miles (straight line) away from your office.
0.1% seems low. Divide walking speed by sqrt(2) to be conservative about directness and you get about 20% of the peninsula within 40 minutes walk, and 40% of it within an hour.
Here in seattle we are building like crazy. I moved into a 1 year old residential skyscraper across the street from my office for the 4 minute door to desk commute.
I don't know how it is in SF, but if you are building sensibly, you would mix high density apartments/condos with offices so that people can live close to where they work.
Why the heck should developers build schools? That's what people pay property taxes and impact fees for. Here on the east coast, I've never even heard of a developer building a school. In my county, there is a law that halts development when the local schools reach 100% capacity, but other than that the county takes on the burden of buying land and building schools to keep up with development: http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/schools/ph-ac-cn-old-mill....
If developers build out suburban neighborhoods creating an integrated plan like this make sense, but what developers are building now is individual infill properties. nimbys that ask for infill developers to should infrastructure costs for a neighborhood is either not up to date on what is being build which by effect means that they living in the past or are intentially stalling development. Both has the same outcome, and with our dire housing situation this deserves a negative reaction if the person refuse to cooperate in creating workable solutions that add significant housing supply.
With regards to who should build infrastructure developer fees and property taxes are there to fund public construction of infrastructure; roads, schools, hospitals, etc. Why do you think requiring developers of individual buildings to build these is reasonable or even a workable solution?
sounds like you are needlessly wound-up about this. it is merely a thought-experiment detailing some amusing anecdotes regarding the progress of society. your idea that this is some rebuttal to undermine the issue of inequality seems to be your strawman...if you look at it from another perspective, much of the progress addressed in the article has resulted from the democratization of economic growth
We don't have to, and shouldn't, read this article in isolation. The author is a pretty hardcore libertarian economist. If you search this blog for "inequality" you'll come up with a bunch of articles revealing that he thinks inequality is at worst irrelevant and at best a good thing:
Example quote: "Second, in a market economy rising monetary inequality is evidence of the expansion of choice and diversity made possible by economic growth. As society becomes materially richer – that is, as consumption goods become less costly and more abundant even for poor people – individuals enjoy a greater range of options of how to spend their time and lives."
Given this context, it would be bizarre if this article was not an argument against addressing inequality.
to be honest it strikes me as the sort of library that excites intermediate developers who tend to over-architect